Abstract
Most research on burnout is based on self-reported questionnaires. Nevertheless, as far as the clinical judgement is concerned, a lack of consensus about burnout diagnosis constitutes a risk of misdiagnosis. Hence, this study aims to assess the added value of a joint use of two tools and compare their diagnostic accuracy: (1) the early detection tool of burnout, a structured interview guide, and (2) the Oldenburg burnout inventory, a self-reported questionnaire. The interview guide was tested in 2019 by general practitioners and occupational physicians among 123 Belgian patients, who also completed the self-reported questionnaire. A receiver operating characteristic curve analysis allowed the identification of a cut-off score for the self-reported questionnaire. Diagnostic accuracy was then contrasted by a McNemar chi-squared test. The interview guide has a significantly higher sensitivity (0.76) than the self-reported questionnaire (0.70), even by comparing the self-reported questionnaires with the interviews of general practitioners and occupational physicians separately. However, both tools have a similar specificity (respectively, 0.60–0.67), except for the occupational physicians’ interviews, where the specificity (0.68) was significantly lower than the self-reported questionnaire (0.70). In conclusion, the early detection tool of burnout is more sensitive than the Oldenburg burnout inventory, but seems less specific. However, by crossing diagnoses reported by patients and by physicians, they both seem useful to support burnout diagnosis.
Highlights
Absences from work due to work-related mental disorders have strongly increased in recent years
The early detection tool of burnout (EDTB) is more sensitive than the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (OLBI), but tends to be less specific
Predict respectively that 70–76% of people diagnosed with burnout would be affected by burnout, and 60–67% of people diagnosed as being healthy by both diagnoses would really be healthy
Summary
Absences from work due to work-related mental disorders have strongly increased in recent years. It is well-established that these disorders negatively impact individuals (e.g., physical and psychological health), organizations (e.g., turnover, absenteeism, lower productivity) and societies (e.g., disability costs). The latest figures reached 471,040 people on long-term disability (>1 year of work disability) in 2020 (employees, unemployed, and self-employed people included) [2]. These increases can largely be explained by the mental disorder rate. Among all long-term disabilities, 78,330 people suffer from depression (16.62%) and
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
